Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Your Fate is Sealed



As much as you wish to "believe" that your thoughts, beliefs and emotions originate in some nebulous kumbaya “consciousness,” even that idea is a charged electro-chemical event in neuro-circuitry. Do you channel ancient cosmic travellers? (guess where that occurs?) Are you blessed with precognition? (not without a brain you ain’t) That ghost you saw was purely a neuro-chemical event, and your outa body experiences happen right there between your ears (hence, you have gone nowhere).

Without serotonin and dopamine there’s a high probability Jed Mckenna would not have achieved the illustrious non-dual “awakening” that he seems so proud of proclaiming. To be “done” is nothing more than allowing the circuits to fire as they will, since it has never been up to you.
If your thoughts are not a matter of choice, why fret about what you think? Attempting to control the direction of impulses firing from 48 billion neurons is hopeless and the cause of all your misery. Why not just fugitabout it? Let it do whatever the fook it wants...
Your neuro-circuits are completely locked into the laws of a predetermined physical universe and there is no free-will available in what must happen exactly as it does. You cannot extract yourself from any of it, because you have no responsibility for any of it. It goes on with you and without you.

The sculpted wiring in your cranium has insured that your responses are always as they should be. There is no free-will in alternating electro-chemical currents.They go where they must and travel the same circuits they have always traveled.

Many claim it’s necessary to believe in free-will, else we’d all become a bunch a fat, lazy, do-nothing, sloths. If “believing” in free-will insures your conformance to a specified agenda, then this only emphasizes external influence and the absence of free-will.

Like a well oiled machine, not one microscopic particle in the universe is free of influence by other particles in that universe. There are no coincidences. You may not like what you get, but you can rest assured, you got it for a reason (even if the reason is not presently apparent or never seen).
The electro-chemical illusion of free-will, orbiting your grey matter, is as much a part of the causal order as the orbiting of the planets around the sun.
New conditioning, based on day to day experiences, can alter or modulate hardwired responses (i.e., certain daily stressors become mitigated and diminished over time due to increased tolerance). Nevertheless, you are completely imprisoned within your formative years, (which is why they are referred to as "formative," since you were quite literally sculpted to be precisely what you are right now without any volition or "choice" on your part).

New stimuli is responded to in old ways, generating additional circuitry linking up with other circuits. There is no such state as a “subconscious,” merely dormant circuits that could be easily influenced to fire at any time, often causing unwanted actions and behaviors.

The core self, or ”personality,” is hard wired and the direction the rest of your life takes is entirely predetermined by all the experiences that impacted your grey matter by age 5, in which you were genetically predetermined to respond just as you did. Circuits influence circuits, as the sculpting of grey matter continues on until the current ceases.

You are nothing more than a mechanistic sack of electrified meat. But what’s so bad about that? You are free to do what you do, because you cannot do anything but what the meat demands.

It’s the same old song and dance, because “there is nothing new under the sun.” Your life always seems the same, simply because it is a pattern of scripted impulses enmeshed in a neural network and interconnected to a grand  tapestry of billions of other repetitive networks all influencing you as you influence them. Neuro-circuits respond to the world thus insuring that the world will unfold as it must because your responses are guaranteed.
As neuroscience is gradually demonstrating, the predetermined causal order knows exactly what you will think before you think it.
You are nothing more than a product, an outcome, a result, influencing additional results that end up influencing you in a unified infinite feedback loop that began long before you became a predetermined product of that causal order. The universe set the conditions for your material manifestation and your manifestation is a necessary component of an unfolding natural order. Everything that happened to you today was predetermined to happen in order for tomorrow to be exactly as it must be.

You are both cause and effect, because the universe from which you emerged, and that has shaped your entire life, has itself been shaped by what you do within it. Neither you nor the causal order that shaped you, "chooses" a direction, because that direction has always been certain, regardless of the circuits in your skull that emphasize uncertainty and doubt. It has always been certain that you would experience doubt and uncertainty and, for most, it is certain that will never change.

You are product of a predetermined causal order that has shaped and sculpted every experience that your brain encounters and every response it subsequently projects into that causal order, thereby, generating additional emergent properties that will stimulate more of this same unfolding.

Looking back on your life it is easy to see that everything that happened had to happen exactly as it did. Every electro-chemical ‘thought’ impulse had to arise exactly as it did for you to “think” exactly as you do now.

I have isolated myself from the world in waves of abject despondency and fully engaged it with relentless vigor and vitality. Then one day, I saw the pattern with crystal clarity and recognized “I-me” had nothing to do with it.

Hence, I simply kept on doing what I was doing.

Your fate is sealed. Your destiny is entirely predetermined and what you do in the next moment will be exactly what should be done, no matter how you wish to evaluate it afterward. In a predetermined causal universe, the sinner is as necessary as the saint and neither are responsible for what they must do.

So whatever you wish to do, go ahead and just fooking do it.

You will anyway, whether you want to or not…


Artwork by Igor Morski

82 comments:

  1. "If “believing” in free-will insures your conformance to a specified agenda, then this only emphasizes external influence and the absence of free-will."

    Well put! This is an excellent point, well made. I was trying to get at something similar in a conversation with a philosophy graduate the other day. She said that she agreed that we don't have have free will (I think she may have qualified it with 'in a conventional sense') but that we need to basically pretend we do to avoid some kind of dystopic social anarchy where no one is held accountable for anything. The point you made, sprang to mind but not formed so succinctly!

    I then pointed out to her how we can never know what our next thought is going to be and how it is completely spontaneous. She looked at me all misty-eyed with a trembling lip and said 'are you the real deal?' and I said 'yes... bebeh,' because I am Jed. :D

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gabriel,

    "...and I said 'yes... bebeh,' because I am Jed. :D"

    Ha!

    For shame Gabriel! Have the graduate student call me, for clearly, as is undeniable..I am Jed.

    I will be more than happy to assist in reframing her thought processes to accurately incorporate her complete lack of free-will.

    ; )

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. Haha! Now I see your motivation for all this stuff! ;) She has a boyfriend unfortunately... Plenty more fish in the sea and all that. :D

    Anyway, back to the serious stoof!

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the circuits dictate everything, would they not also dictate attempts to control the circuits and any resulting misery? What, then, would be the point of attempting to tell others not to fret? Could your circuits affect their circuits? If so, could my circuits affect your circuits?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "If the circuits dictate everything, would they not also dictate attempts to control the circuits and any resulting misery?"

    yep...

    What, then, would be the point of attempting to tell others not to fret?

    No purpose or point whatsoever. But based on my circuitry it is poetic license, which is equally useless. There is nothing in the causal order that can be seen as purposeful, except with egocentric purposes. Yet, egocentricity has spent centuries developing its own purposes, which your comment relates to. The very fact of inquiring of purpose belies the fact that one believes, or even seeks, a purpose. To ask, "what's the purpose of..." demonstrates an adherence to purpose in and of itself and fails to see that there is none, only demonstrating that one hopes to one day find it (this is McKenna's fallacy). When one realizes that there is no purpose to anything, one wouldn't bother asking such questions.

    "Could your circuits affect their circuits? If so, could my circuits affect your circuits?"

    Indeed, it's happening as we speak...

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait just a tick. I specifically remember something about zits and how they have purposes.

      What if someone has a purpose? I want to eat a hamburger. I eat a hamburger. Purpose achieved. How could you argue against the experience of having a purpose? Doesn't that imply that your view of purpose is superior to others? How could you even conceive of "purpose" if it doesn't exist?

      What about thermodynamic equilibrium?

      Delete
    2. The idea of 'purpose' is pretty moot I think (personally) as it eventually supposes an ultimate or overarching point to 'it all'. You don't eat a hamburger with the purpose of eliminating it but that is ultimately the hamburger's fate! More poetically you don't dance to get to a certain spot in the floor, you're just... grooving, you know? - You could say, purposelessly. Perhaps one is dancing to attract a mate (sorry this seems to be on the mind today), but even so, why would that be? You could say ultimately to procreate and continue the human game indefinitely. But what is the purpose of that? ... Everything just seems to be 'for it's own sake', it seems.

      Also, you can conceive of many things that don't exist! Doesn't make them exist necessarily. Don't need to list strange examples (famous Flying Spaghetti Monster comes to mind though).

      Gabriel

      Delete
    3. Gabriel,

      Sorry about the delayed response - for some reason I just now saw this.

      "Everything seems to be 'for its own sake.'"

      My point exactly. Purpose is inherent in desire in that the purpose of a desire is the satisfaction of that desire. To say that purpose doesn't exist is to say that desire does not exist (If A, then B. If not B, then not A). If someone says that their life does not have purpose, I say that that person is not living in accordance with his desires.

      With regard to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I knew someone would respond like this. Here's an artist's rendering of the FSM:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

      There are basically three components: the eyes, which are like that of a slug's and the meatballs and spaghetti, which are obviously the contents of a spaghetti dish. All three of these components are based on things that are real. If the artist had made something up, he would have been actualizing a possibility, which brings me to the next point.

      Purpose is not a tangible thing. It does not exist in physical space and only exists in the mind or otherwise through experience. So my question is what is Mike talking about with regard to purpose, which he says doesn't exist? From what idea(s) or experience(s) could he ever have drawn the idea of purpose if it doesn't exist?

      He must have felt purpose at some point or else he would have no idea what he was talking about when he used the word. Regardless, we're talking about something that can only exist in the mind. Purpose is completely subjective. So when Mike says "No purpose or point whatsoever," he's really saying "I see no purpose or point whatsoever (but I used to).

      Purpose, by its emotional and intangible nature, is possible, but whether it exists depends on the individual. I would also suggest that Mike still sees purpose, but that's a longer conversation.

      Delete
    4. No purpose....patterns.

      When you experience the complete absence of free-will, all purposes exit as well, since without autonomous agency there is the realization that "I-me" means nothing, does nothing and has no purpose.

      This opens you up to see the causal 'patterns' that "you" have nothing to do with. Egocentrica mammalia can only perceive the purposes he is programmed to perceive and this filters out patterns in the causal order, since he superimposes his own meanings upon everything.

      Yet, when free-will completely exits, the patterns emerge, simply because you've burnt up the meaning circuits. This tends to alter perception, but not all at once. It tends to come in waves. I think I posted in here about "riding the waves." Have to find that.

      Obviously, there is nothing anyone can do to make this occur.

      Mike

      Delete
    5. Mike, I know that I've said something similar multiple times, but this is where I don't understand where you're coming from. Do you simply observe your life happening? When you do things, do you not experience that "you" are doing them? Rather, do you experience that they are just happening?

      Keep in mind, I'm not asking about something theoretical like that your actions are dictated by your brain chemistry. You might read about that kind of thing and think that it makes sense that it drives your actions, but I think I can safely assume that you don't experience your brain chemistry directly.

      When you eat a hamburger, do you experience that you are initiating the motion of moving your arm and chewing or do you experience that this is happening without your conscious input?

      Also, are the patterns that you speak of the same ones that Jed talks about when he explains why he is able to move through life effortlessly as a Human Adult?

      Delete
  6. “She has a boyfriend unfortunately“

    what?! f-sake. i'm done.

    abe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I'm done"

    Haha. Then my work here is done...

    Yours,
    (The REAL) Jed (of the antipodes - Mike can be the American one, you can take your pick, I hear Brazil has nice ladies ;)

    Gabriel (aka)

    ReplyDelete
  8. purpose is nice, porpoise is nicer
    who needs meaning, with all this feeling?
    love rips me apart.......

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If the artist had made something up, he would have been actualizing a possibility"

    This reminds me of (or may even be identical with) Descartes' 'Painter's Analogy' from his famous Meditations. I seem to recall him going further and doubting the existence of composite parts, and further still to doubt even mathematical truths etc...

    Apart from that, yeah what you say sounds strictly correct, I guess, if you're going to define purpose in the way I think you stated it in an earlier post (which would be according to the dictionary, so can't really argue with that!). But is that really what you're getting at? You must know Mike and everyone else will have objectives or intentions, or why else would he write these articles or eat? Does the heart beating have a 'purpose'? Only if we superimpose one on, as Mike says. I thought what you were getting at was some sort of 'meta-purpose' or meaning with which to say 'this is why I'm alive'. I'm guessing though you've been around the block enough to see that one is not readily apparent!

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holy moly, I wasn't trying to plagiarize, I promise. I don't think that I've ever heard of the "Painter Analogy," but I googled it and found this:

      http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/meditations/section2.rhtml

      If you search "painter" on the page, you'll see why I say "holy moly."

      "You must know Mike and everyone else will have objectives or intentions, or why else would he write these articles or eat?"

      This is exactly what I'm getting at. It's one thing that to say that brain chemistry drives action and that it has no purpose of its own (although that makes an assumption - see below), but it's another thing for Mike to say that he doesn't experience purpose, which is why I asked the questions I did.

      Seeing that purpose is something that occurs within the mind only, i.e., within consciousness only, in order for something to have purpose, it would need to be conscious. So of course, Mike is correct when he says the circuits do not have consciousness of their own. Or is he? Because consciousness is not detectible in the physical world, it may very well be that the blowing wind has its own purpose. Because we can't communicate with it, we will never know unless we utilize faith, belief, or whatever else gets us to the idea that it might be conscious.

      Also, is it not my circuits that are conscious? If yes, then purpose is inherent in the circuits via their consciousness. If my circuits are not conscious, then Mike's premise of consciousness following the circuits is invalid. Mike would probably say that the circuits themselves are not conscious, but if it is not the circuits that are conscious, what exactly is conscious? We could also differentiate between the specific circuits that relate to human consciousness and other circuits such as the wind, but again we're left with the same assumption that I mentioned in regard to the blowing wind.

      If Mike can explain how it is that he's not displaying purpose when he does things like eat and write this blog, I'll withdraw all of that. I don't see why desire has to be inherent in consciousness, so it could very well be that he simply observes his life. I just want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

      Delete
  10. I suppose it's more a matter of it not being "my" purpose. There is external influence and internal programming, both I did not create and so I have no emotional involvement anymore in what happens now that I understand that. Hard to explain the experience and I don't wanna get all hocus pocus woowoo here, but I suppose it 'feels' like I am separate from "me" but still me.

    Kinda like what psych sciences call "dissociation" or "derealization." I lack personal involvement in the "purposes" i engage in, but indeed I still engage in purposes. I just often feel they are no longer mine and have no real investment in the outcome and this increases over time. There was no 'presto chango' experience and it still percolates as the days pass by. So, yes, I suppose it could be described as "observing." Like a detached observer of myself. Can be a pain sometimes cuz folks get persnickety over my lack of involvement in their drama.

    I gritted over this sheit for some 10 yrs till it finally popped (but still, as these posts indicate, require further accommodation). But Not really looking to describe experiences on this blog. Just focus on the intellectual percolating of the idea of a complete absent of free-will, which then leads to... if not my will then who or what, which my most recent posts delve into with the "predetermined causal order."

    Yep, "accomodating." I have spent many yrs accommodating to the understanding that I have no autonomous free-will or agency.

    This probably doesn't help clear things up, but feel free to inquire further as it is helpful for me to reflect as well.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  11. "But if it is not the circuits that are conscious, what exactly is conscious?"

    Good question. According to Dylan, you're on the right track though...

    'The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowin' in the wind....'

    Speak up, wind!

    Funny that you arrived at the same point as Descartes independently regarding the composite parts etc. Natural philosopher!

    I'm afraid the correct answer was 'mermaid', though, so you got that part wrong... 'Mermaid'.... ;)

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike, your experience actually reminds me of some of the more positive and interesting effects of the drug ketamine. (Not that I would know about that kind of thing ((SWIM etc etc)). I suppose you wouldn't take exception to that as you believe it's all just down to the altering of neurocircuitry anyway, much like a drug.

    I think you're undergoing something somewhat deeper than that though, but that's just my opinion...

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm familiar with PCP, not to mention the various lysergic acids, shrooms, peyote, mescaline, etc, etc. But that was some 30 yrs ago and relates more to the other McKenna (Terrence).

    But this brings up a good point and that is, did extensive psychoactive pharmacological experiences alter the neuro-circuitry in ways that blazed a path to now? How was I to know? I had no knowledge of what could come of it, if anything did.

    I have considered this and am leaning more toward the affirmative. But that was close to 30 yrs ago and is not the only influencing variables impacting and sculpting the circuits.

    Regardless of the variables, this 'experience' is chronic and continues to build in intensity, contrary to the episodic effects of psychedelics (and, currently, a glass or two of red wine is the extent of my altering states thru chemicals).

    And, yes, it seems the neuro-circuits must be impacted upon and I had no idea what the fook I was doing when I was dropping acid, nor in what it would lead to, if anything.

    But, again, the influence cannot be denied and looking back...

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Mike,
    From the first couple of your paragraphs, it doesn't sound to me like you get what Jed is saying in his books, nor the other few hundred seemingly non-bogus expositors in the nondual tradition. If you know anything about the textbook definition of enlightenment, you know that an individual "Jed" cannot achieve awakening even with serotonin etc, nor does he claim so. It sort of sounds that way because of the clumsy language needed to try to convey these sorts of topics. Others just drop the word "I" completely, and that's even worse. Now, whether or not they are bullshitting us or not we will never know... I just happen to think that there are some common themes expressing something that is there before thought arises, and that is an interesting subject to me.

    OK, that's enough about Jed, and nonduality in general - this blog is all about thought. The term "purpose" keeps resurfacing. Mike's position is that nothing has a purpose, things just happen based on preconditions. This is how it is. But let's look at the real purpose of life or life-force or whatever universal-impetus you prefer. Life, and its myriad programming serves one only purpose - to perpetuate itself. Everything we are programmed to do is all about continuing the species, keeping the meat puppets alive to ensure that the young ones get to a viable age so as to continue the cycle. Concerns about the zit arise from concerns that it will become infected causing death and consequent lack of ability to nurture the next generation. The purpose of the hamburger is to feed the organism in order to strenghten and ensure its survival. Is there any mystery that nature makes the most appealing stuff the highest calorie count?

    So there's your innate and inviolable purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not to be rude, but in the interest of brevity, I really don't give a fook what Jed means. Primarily because what Jed means will be interpreted by the circuitry impacted by Jed (similar to the Bible). No offense tho. I like Jed and I read the trilogy several yrs ago and several times.

    "Everything we are programmed to do is all about continuing the species, keeping the meat puppets alive to ensure that the young ones get to a viable age so as to continue the cycle."

    Well that's a good point, but what if the species exterminates itself, as it seems most likely to do under the current conditions the species itself has perpetuated, then that purpose will be negated entirely. In fact, the causal order has easily exterminated entire species, which may be indicative of that not actually being a 'purpose' intended by the causal order. Of course, egocentrica mammalia may see survival as its purpose, but that may be its own delusion (and part of the causal order)

    It appears somewhat obvious to me that egocentric mammalia cannot, no matter how hard he tries, see a purpose in a predetermined causal order, due to programmed circuitry demanding he see the purpose he has been programmed to see. Survival cannot be an absolute purpose since many who should adhere to that purpose, take their own lives contrary to that purpose.

    From my current understanding, I see that there is no purpose, only unending patterns that again, from my understanding, go beyond simply survival.

    But, then again, understanding changes, as the predetermined causal order ordains.

    So it's not up to me what I understand...

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike, thank you for what are seemingly your most honest posts to date! I take no issue with you saying that you are simply observing your life - I have felt that to some degree. I don't see why desire/purpose is necessarily inherent in consciousness (although I do identify with desire to a large degree). It seems perfectly possible that the latter could exist without the former.

    To me, the next question is whether all of this seems right and gives you the experience you want in life. I've experienced years of derealization and hated it, so I've tried to find something more. I still experience it to some degree, but it's not as bad.

    In your response to Chris, you mentioned a "what if" regarding whether our species goes extinct. It seems that you think that anything that has an end does not have a purpose. Is that what purpose means?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend not to filter perception through the qualifiers, right & wrong, as much anymore. So I suppose whatever is...is or it is what it is. However, I do tend to find humor in some of the strangest settings and situations, which is nice sometimes (long as I can keep it to myself).

      I suppose "purpose" is simply a reason for being. Perpetuation of species seems on face value a likely enough reason. Yet, extinction of species negates that purpose. Hence, and to engage in a li'l devil's advocacy, I propose that the purpose of species is to seek extinction, not of individual members, but of whole species. Possibly, the causal order has predetermined this through a DNA imprint that allows whole species only a brief span of a few thousand yrs before mass extinction.

      Don't necessarily believe that, but it does seem to be more predominant in view of earth's history. The survival instinct of individuals is trumped by the necessary extinction of whole species.

      Ha!

      Sounds good to me...
      Mike

      Delete
  17. Not to be rude, but in the interest of brevity, I really don't give a fook what Jed means. Primarily because what Jed means will be interpreted by the circuitry impacted by Jed (similar to the Bible)

    I believe you meant:
    Not to be rude, but in the interest of brevity, I really don't give a fook what Mike means. Primarily because what Mike means will be interpreted by the circuitry impacted by Mike (similar to the Bible)

    OK, so purpose out, pattern in. Just as well, one less term to bandy about. And it removes any vestige, or hint, or faint aroma of free-will.

    Rephrasing: the pattern of life is to perpetuate itself. Everything we are programmed to do is all about continuing the species, keeping the meat puppets alive to ensure that the young ones get to a viable age so as to continue the cycle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I believe you meant:
      Not to be rude, but in the interest of brevity, I really don't give a fook what Mike means. Primarily because what Mike means will be interpreted by the circuitry impacted by Mike (similar to the Bible)"

      Mike is not impacted by Mike. "Mike" is already in there, all wired up. However, Mike is impacted by Chris as is Chris impacted by Mike and based on that influential exchange, each will respond to the other as only they are so wired to.

      This then influentially impacts other neuro-circuits resulting in programmed responses, on and on, ad infinitum, as the causal order has predetermined.

      Mike

      Delete
  18. Chris,

    Not that you have to defend Jed, but I was wondering if you wanted to respond to my comments about spiritual autolysis and Jed's theory of everything at the end of the previous article.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jonathan,

    Sorry for missing that bit - I had intended to respond but the thread switched and posts were just flying around like crazy.

    I guess I really don't want to go too much farther down the Jed-hole, I think I have contributed more than enough already. I will say that when I read your use of the word 'truth' it is in the context of a thought or concept. Jed (and Nisargadatta, Ramana, Jesus, Norquist, and so on) all state that as soon as a thought arises, you are firmly in Reality with all its marvelous rides, and where any statement that you think is true is nothing more than something bubbling around in your gray matter. SA is a psychological technique intended to expose the thoughts as un-believable hence untrue, leaving just??? pure awareness or something like that I guess.

    You know, most of the aforementioned experts strongly recommend against any of these activities... they suggest you find a better hobby, like developing a finely honed sense of free-will or purpose. Assuming that's what the causal order dictates.

    No more Jed....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris,

      You're leaving me hanging, man. I have more questions. Answer them if you want. If not, no big deal. To put it in his terms, Jed was dead on arrival for me so it doesn't matter whether or not I understand his explanations, but I am curious.

      Your last post makes me wonder what "true" means to the non-dualist guys. In what sense is a thought not true? Is it not true in relation to experience? From where does thought come if not from experience? Wouldn't one need to compare experience or thought to something "true" in order to know that experience or thought is not true?

      I guess I could be talking about something completely different than what the nondualists are talking about. Feel free to explain if you like.

      Delete
    2. Jonathan,
      Rather than me feebly attempt to rehash some dusty words, I suggest you procure TOE and read it.... it pretty much spends some 100 odd pages discussing this very subject. 8 bucks or so as a download.

      Delete
    3. I have read TOE and had the same questions immediately upon reading it.

      Here's what Jed says about Truth:
      -Truth exists (via argument that "truth does not exist")
      -Truth must be unchanging (arbitrary assertion)
      -Truth must be whole/singular (arbitrary assertion)
      -Truth must be universal (a little less arbitrary, but still potentially contentious)
      -Truth must be infinite (what does this even mean?)

      I'm not going to read the entire book again, but I don't recall him actually defining truth, only its properties (although maybe that's the only way). I don't know why truth must be unchanging, singular, or infinite. If you define truth in this specific way, sure, Jed's theory is what you come up with. But if you define truth as having cheese, dough, marinara sauce, and pepperonis, truth is pizza. Truth is pizza. That which cannot be any simpler.

      As I said a few days ago, experience alone does not ask the question of whether it is true. It's only when we start conceptualizing, verbalizing, and generally slicing and dicing derivations from experience that Truth becomes relevant. To borrow from your next-to-last post, Truth only exists in the context of thoughts or concepts.

      Here are a couple quotes from TOE:

      "Brahman is Atman, Atman is Brahman. That's the whole deal."

      "...we can be sure Brahmanic Consciousness does exist and that Atmanic Consciousness doesn’t."

      "How does untrue Atmanic arise from true Brahmanic? I don’t know. Go ask Maya. Actually, I do know. Untrue Atmanic doesn’t arise from true Brahmanic, because untruth does not exist. There is only truth. Brahmanic Consciousness is our absolute nature, Atmanic Consciousness is our living reality. Consciousness is true, the contents of consciousness are not."

      This is like Jed's version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has absolutely no basis for establishing that such a "Truth" exists because he has in no way touched it by experience, yet it is somehow certain to exist. It appears that Jed used definitions of Truth, e.g., infinite, universal, that are specifically inconceivable by an individual. He took his definition of Truth and backed out the assumptions. Oh, and also, Atman is Brahman somehow.

      What's the deal?

      Delete
    4. Chris,

      I noticed that you've referenced Jed and other nondualist masters a couple times in a kind of appeal to authority. Do you perceive that this is somehow over your head and that you just have to take Jed's word for it?

      Delete
    5. First, how Jed describes truth is obviously in contradiction with how you do, or want to. I find some of his premises interesting, that's all. Mike's too.

      Second, I *know* this is completely over my head, or not-of-my-head perhaps. And that I would be totally screwed if I just take his word for it, so I don't. I don't really believe much lately, sometimes I poke at things with sticks to see what happens.

      So now I am *really* done with the Jed stuff. Or anything else that smells of meta-physics. This is a scientific blog dammit.

      Delete
  20. Chris you say regarding proponents of nonduality,

    "Now, whether or not they are bullshitting us or not we will never know"

    How do you know we will never know? Seems rather 'defeatist' and to presume that it's some kind of super-special thing for the rare few, which doesn't have to be the case (despite what JM might say about 50 people per planet etc). It's just your 'natural state', unadorned with believed-in concepts.

    If it is verified in 'direct experience' what they are talking about, we will know that they are not just spinning an elaborate, fantastical philosophy that happens to collude in many (often somewhat counter-intuitive, yet) undeniably concordant ways.

    There's way more than 50 people who have 'got the understanding' just through Bob alone, I'd hazard a guess. I think it just takes some determination and a genuine disillusionment with the merry-go-round of thought (which can't be contrived, I suppose) to see whether it is bullshit or not. Even I've had insights and I'm far from the spiritual elite, believe me!

    I don't see why the people at Bob's would be making it up. If someone claims to 'understand', there are no bottles of champagne and party-poppers set off; Bob barely so much as raises his eyebrows. Not because he doesn't believe them but just because it's deemed obvious what we are. Nothing special about the appearance of 'someone getting it'...

    Anyway, perhaps that's not what you meant though and you still have your solipsist hat on... In which case, I may be preaching to the converted!

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should say '50 people on this planet'... Not suggesting every planet on the Catalog of Nearby Habitable Systems is swarming with extraterrestrial enlightened beings. Though you never know...
      (perhaps the requires the tin-foil hat this time...)

      Gabriel

      Delete
    2. Gabriel,
      I think most folks who claim enlightenment are having a nice bliss bunny experience. When I consider the horrors of ripping my ego to shreds, I couldn't imagine sitting around all touchy-feely, I think I'd probably want to crawl off somewhere quiet for a while.

      Nothing wrong with bliss bunnies though, they beat the hell out of serial killers.

      Delete
  21. Hmmm...well, the experience of a serial killer is an experience only a rare few encounter. And there are many other "direct experiences" that are not chosen, but experienced nonetheless.

    My guess is that very few "choose" to experience being a serial killer and most likely, serial killers do not set out, as a goal, with the desire to achieve a "direct experience" serial killing. But the fact is, there are a rare few who do experience serial killing and the rest of us could never understand that "direct experience" no matter how it was conceptualized by those who have experienced it.

    Hence, serial killing and enlightenment are compatible experiences that cannot be taught, since they cannot be chosen.

    The marketing of "direct experience," by those like JM and Sailor Bob, et al, is completely bogus and a total egocentric mammalian delusion completely allowed by a predetermined order.

    The egocentricity of this speaks volumes, since serial killing is itself a direct experience few egocentrics experience, yet there are no books, tapes or seminars on it.

    Question: why is the direct experience of serial killing not as valuable as the direct experience of enlightenment if, in fact, both are and have always been a product of the causal order?

    This would only affirm that direct experience is not under anyone's direction.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bob doesn't market 'direct experiences' of enlightenment. I put it in quotation marks because what he talks about is what is prior to experience and arguably necessary for it to occur. Bob doesn't think being 'enlightened' is any more valuable than being a serial killer, ultimately. Both are just appearances, as far as on the personal level. Relatively though, who would you rather hang out with? Someone who has apparently dispensed with believing in the ego trappings or one who hasn't who wants to murder you? We shouldn't throw out all relative 'good and bad' or not work within that framework to some degree. That would be very foolish indeed. Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'Bob doesn't market 'direct experiences' of enlightenment. I put it in quotation marks because what he talks about is what is prior to experience and arguably necessary for it to occur.'

    Anyone who asserts variables "necessary for it to occur" establishes an "it" that must or should occur and is a charlatan. Plain and simple.

    "Bob doesn't think being 'enlightened' is any more valuable than being a serial killer, ultimately."

    Really? C'mon man, who would buy his tapes if he actually made such a clainm? That is highly unlikely, simply because, if he equated the exclusiveness of enlightenment (or awakening or non duality or direct experience of whatever they claim "it" to be...and those label seem to change with the wind), nobody would buy his fokking books or attend his seminars. It is undeniably egocentrica mammalian bs. But bs is accomodated into the egocentric role in the causal order, so no it's expected and seen by those who see.

    "Someone who has apparently dispensed with believing in the ego trappings or one who hasn't who wants to murder you?"

    "ego trappings"??? Dude, get off the script for chrisakes. Still stuck in 'value sytsems'?

    "We shouldn't throw out all relative 'good and bad' or not work within that framework to some degree."

    What "framework"? Who developed it and why?

    Gabriel, you have to jettison ALL of it. Every tiny morsel of value before you can see patterns. You still seem to think certain variables matter.

    They don't...

    : )
    Miike

    ReplyDelete
  24. You may be right in that there is an 'it' implied and yet also 'there is nothing to get'. It's a complete head-fuck when you think about ir to be honest, but a compelling head-fuck none the less... The idea of destroying a koan through logic seems ridiculous to me too however. Anyway I'm enjoying nature at the moment so I will write you a proper response later as it's a lovely sunny day! I'm sure I will be thinking about this anyway though as I am that way inclined. And chill out! Only joking. Cheers, Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Lovely sunny day"??

    Sheit, that might be the problem.

    Where are you at Gabriel?

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yo Mike, I was at the botanical gardens getting absolutely scorched in the sun - hot day! Sunscreen a must today! Haha yes it may be the problem, well I may have heatstroke so if this becomes any more incoherent than usual you will know why.

    To answer some of your questions, no I don't believe I am stuck in value systems in any absolute sense whatsoever. A nuclear bomb is as natural as a flower, as far as I'm concerned. Having said that there is conditioning or, more likely, an innate disposition towards, for example trying to minimise pain for myself and (to a lesser extent I suppose, no doubt due to egocentric bias or animal-programming) also for others. Now pain is not innately 'bad', nor pleasure or comfort 'good', I understand this. However if something has proven to decrease suffering, I think this is worth investigating. Even if you are right and consciousness is an epiphenomenal bi-product of the brain's structure, surely there would be a preference towards things that can reduce psychological suffering, even if doing this is not in some sense 'good' in an absolute way?

    Or do you prefer things which harm people, like serial killers? (Stupid question I know, but at the same time I mean that you obviously have some sort of values, even if you don't hold them sacred and realise that they are merely conditioned, are not in any way sacred, and exist between your ears only).

    For the record I'm not really sticking to any Bob-type script, I'm using terms he doesn't even use to try to describe it, probably poorly. Also Chris, apologies if I sounded slightly snarky then if I did, it wasn't intended to sound like your building 'it' up to be anything or even if you've implied there's much of an 'it' haha, you haven't left that impression.

    I'm going to go and try to cool down now! Waaaaay hot still and it's nearly 10 o'clock at night.

    Cheers,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  27. This may be an issue of semantics again... I suppose if we use values to mean a way things 'ought' to be then I can see why you have abandoned this and it would be wise to actually..... You might actually like Bob, (praise Bob!) as you agree on that. Haha.

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mike said:
    Gabriel, you have to jettison ALL of it. Every tiny morsel of value before you can see patterns. You still seem to think certain variables matter.

    Perfect statement. I will print it out and stick it on my computer, fridge and dashboard.


    What remains post-jettison?
    non-free-will-ist: Causal order
    non-dual-ist: Consciousness

    p.s. Gabriel: The beliefs and values you think have dissipated go very deep and are adept at hiding themselves. I know this.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks Chris, I'm sure you're right about the beliefs and values still being apparent. I haven't even graduated to bliss bunny yet really so I'm sure there is a way to go (perhaps in the direction of that SoCal ashram you mentioned earlier).

    Regarding the painful process of the destruction of the ego, I've heard of this, and may even be periodically undergoing it. I've also heard, and feel have had glimpses of seeing, however brief, that the ego is a fiction or phantom, no more than this. But I'm sure it's a painful fiction to uproot none the less! Must be disorientating to lose that reference point completely.

    Naturally, I can't even begin to imagine what it is like. So it's hard to know if it's even something 'I want', I suppose. I guess, as Mike says, I could just forget about it ('fugitabout it'), as if it will happen it will happen. I can't believe that there is no correlation between thinking about and entertaining this stuff though and it happening, but I could be wrong. Otherwise it would seem to be something deeply mysterious and hard to predict, but that's not very scientific...!

    Thanks,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  30. This has been a good exchange with all of you, because it's good for me to question what have clearly been some unchallenged notions I have been holding. In a lot of ways, I have been taking things on faith without even realising this. With my non-dual hat still donned, I would say that Bob only encourages one to look for themselves. However I do see the contradiction in there being 'nothing to do' at the same time. I think Bob's encouragement not to think about this stuff too much (if at all) is a double-edged sword. It may be the most compassionate short-course to nowhere, or it may present an obstacle to deep inquiry.

    He doesn't present himself as an authority figure really, but in fact, either way, one has to be their own authority. Or even, as Krishnamurti says, and like I think Mike and Chris are saying, reject the inner authoritative voice too, as it is just conditioning and super-ego after all.

    So my question to you guys would be, is the ego a fiction or is it a very real brain phenomenon? I can see evidence of it in myself and in the world of course, but does it have any substantial nature, and what do you guys think it even mean to 'see through' it, if this is capable of being expressed linguistically? Is it just gobbledegook or is something real being got at?

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By 'see through' I mean expose as illusion. I guess the absence of free will would be a good way of seeing through it. Not to answer my own question but I guess perhaps it points to the absence of one locus called 'I'. This was my insight (so to speak). And like you say Chris, what's left depends on how it's interpreted perhaps, or does it...?

      Gabriel

      Delete
  31. I don't want to get out of bed any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't want to get out of bed any more."

      First sign of progress. I remember it well. But not to worry.

      This too will pass....
      Mike

      Delete
  32. I think most here fail to see that there is no understanding of this to be had, to the point that you can make out that you are reporting from some absolute perspective and say this is all predetermined and so on in the end its just another word for THIS. This experience of this is it, if it is pulled apart and re-aligned and determined to be an "illusion' or called something else well that’s just what’s happening, it’s still just the isness of this. There is no getting closer to this or escaping this. Our experience seems to operate at this relative level of apparent duality and we can say this is an illusion, it makes no difference, its still this the absolute appearing as relative, it could be said. You think that you can get to a position where all this is clear and observable and that conclusions can be made about some sort of true nature of experience. Free will or not free will there is no difference, it is what it is, as it is experienced. Even the notion “this had to happen” what does that mean, its just happens whether it had to happen or their appears to be a thing thinking it’s a you making it happen, you can never be in a position where you know, one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "...its just happens whether it had to happen or their appears to be a thing thinking it’s a you making it happen, you can never be in a position where you know, one way or the other."

    Sure you can. Just analyze your life and the logic becomes irrefutable. "You" had absolutely nothing to do with what transpired, with what was manifest, with what was experienced, with what was thought, with what was felt and with any action impressed upon reality based on some delusion of volition.

    I just ask folks to take the time to fully analyze. I took years...

    You can "know" or understand and some do. But I emphasize that they had no choice in that understanding.

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just so you know, I haven't become an existential nihilist JUST yet, I'm more leaning towards a generalised agnosticism. Cop out? Maybe, but to me it seems correct that no thought system can capture what this is. Including Bob's, certainly. I think I really have been a poor representative for ol' Bob though, garbling his teachings and such. He isn't a charlatan, he has certainly had 'something' happen to him that has reduced suffering. Whether that has a purely neurological basis or not I'm again agnostic about. I do know though, that dropping this stuff and saying 'ah fook it' is quite a load off. At Bob's we're encouraged not to 'seek' (if possible) but I think somehow it may create a sense of dissatisfaction with things as they 'are' (or seem to be) that is counterproductive. That could just be my habitual mode of searching for experiences though rather any fault with the teaching. I'll have to contemplate that some more. So it's good to have my (largely unconscious perhaps) beliefs shook up anyway. I'd put mu last posts down to certain weed really ha, makes me very sceptical of all thoughts, including 'nondual' ones in this case. It's actually invigorating to stir up what may have become somewhat calcified. To anonymous re: staying in bed. I've been there too! As Mike says, this to shall pass. Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes they all sit in that lounge room in Burke Road and feel special. Nothing wrong with that (been in that room), its just that it is taken by those who attend as a spiritual philosophy that can be applied once they leave the front door despite what Bob said its inevitable.

      Delete
  35. "He isn't a charlatan, he has certainly had 'something' happen to him that has reduced suffering."

    Gabriel, ya know I luv's ya man, but...

    ...how would you know that?

    What is this fear of suffering? Why the need to "reduce" it? Is that the goal of spiritual seeking, enlightenment, awakening, non-duality, etc, etc, etc.? Or is that the marketed 'bliss bunny' new age spirituality the post-modern age requires? I have enjoyed reading some of the ideas presented by these spiritual leaders for the past 30 yrs, but essentially they are ALL narcissists (and Jed is their undisputed king! LOL)

    But then, how can they not be? Granted narcissism is a 20th century conceptual invention (one could say Buddha was a narcissist, if he ever even existed), but clearly anyone who lives in a body could not possibly be free of suffering. It is categorically impossible?

    However, I do note you state "reduced suffering."

    Again, how is that available to you? Could it be that you make that interpretation based on a paradigm of "awakening" wired up in the grey matter?

    There is an old saying: "I gotta see it to believe it." That's false and the more accurate proclamation is: "If I believe it, I will see it" and all else will be filtered out. Another process of predetermined nuero-circuits..

    No offense, Just thinking out loud here...
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  36. David, "...and feel special" - maybe to a degree. As far as this kind of thing, Bob seems to be one of the least pretentious I would say (and that's SO special! Haha). Mike, it's been the goal of all these traditions for thousands of years, I think. I meant psycholigical suffering, not physical pain. Most of the former is predicated on being a seperate self (i believe, i suppose). Anyway have a lecture, might say more... Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ok, so do you (adressed to anyone with an opinion on the matter) think the whole 'freedom from/in suffering' gig is bunk? It's not the only goal though, supposedly there is some sort of super-normal perception or apprehension of reality (or 'Truth') too. Is this to be consigned to the 'spiritual hokum' pile too? And if so how would YOU (anyone) know for sure? Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  38. Also, Mike, no offence taken. If I'm identified with anything it's with a belief system that talks about how relative and paryial all belief systems are. I'm fairly easy with this stuff and ptobably exaggerating how much anything's 'calcified'. Not like I was raised Catholic or anything, I do have that background tho (who'd a thunk it with a name like mine??). Whether I become a 'lapsed nondualist' remains to be seen ;) Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool bro,

      It's a Magic Bus and I'm savin' you a seat right by me. Jonathan and Chris are in the row adjacent and a few other like minded blokes are in the seats around. Everybody's the same...

      We're riding along, just waitin' to see what happens, cuz there's no hands upon the wheel and the bus just goes where it WILLS. A few of us get nervous bout that, but soon we settle down and recognize it can only go where it must.

      Knowing that, we all smile at one another, in the security that we're goin' where we need to go, and so the ride is okay.

      Eventually, we all get off at the exact spot we need to...

      Mike

      Delete
    2. Nicely put.

      I'll bring some salty snacks - it might be a long trip.

      Delete
  39. I'm fairly sure that Matthew McConaughey's character from True Detective is based on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to chime in on that - saw part 3 last night. I love it when subversive stuff like that sneaks into the mainstream. I'm still waiting for the HBO mini-series of Waiting For Godot. Maybe as a musical.

      I wonder if Matthew is that author whose name shall not be spoken...

      Delete
  40. Nice metaphor Mike : )

    So David, are you saying you agree with Bob's message, and it's just people corrupting it you take issue with?

    Care to distill the essence of what he says in a way we can all understand?

    You talk about 'This' being the absolute appearing as relative. Do you understand something I don't?

    Not to sound terse, just writing quickly and curious.

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No! Iove Bob he's the real deal.

      Delete
    2. Its just this can't be taught or even pointed to no matter how clear the teacher. As soon as a word is written or spoken there is a trying to achieve something, its inevitable and how it seems to be. Thats why I like the Jed quote "Truth Talk in the dreamstate" even though most Jed stuff is a load of rubbish.The cleanest expression of this I have ever come across is a poet who lives south of Byron Bay called Peter Marjason, he has a website called Advaita Notebook

      Delete
    3. "Its just this can't be taught or even pointed to no matter how clear the teacher."

      If it can't be taught or even "pointed to no matter how clear the teacher" the dialogue is done. Or...are you saying it cannot be spoken of within the parameters you require?

      From my perspective (good or bad, based on individual interpretation), there is nothing sacred about this sheit, but the historically incessant need to make it sacred has defiled it completely (and much of my blog posts tend to highlight this situation) and this makes it no different than mainstream religion.

      My apologies though...whenever I hear or read the word "advaita," I tend to recognize that I am in for a conceptual feast from the best wordsmiths of the 21st century. Nowadays, there is a verbal skill to being an "advaitist," whereas, in the past, no one even knew such a type even existed....

      It seems to me that these wordsmiths do nothing more than prolong the inevitable. At least, for those who wish to go "further."

      Mike

      Delete
    4. Mike, Of course it done! How could it be not done, there is nowhere else to go but this.You know it ( with all due respects) but pretend that it is not done or that there is something else to understand to get to this, that seems to be the 'nature' of 'seeking', which is also this. There is great enjoyment in posting here, writing about this, pretending there is some sort of progress to a greater understanding, its very sweet!

      Delete
    5. Done with believing that there is anywhere to go with this, anything to achieve, anything to understand or know. In direct experience there is only this. No now or moment or oneness or thought or mind or knowingness, just this, direct, prior to anything else thisness.

      Delete
  41. Mike, just read your pieces on 'Jed Mckenna Big Fat Ego' (haha) and 'Populist Gurus' - both excellent! You know what I think you may have converted me... Seems I have been grasping at conceptual straws to be honest, convincing only myself (which is allegedly completely beside the point in the nondual camp I realise, but this may only be in theory...). I don't really give a shit though, funnily enough! As you say, it's all just happening, no one to control it, they're right about that.

    I can't really say I have met many 'enlightened' dudes or 'dudettes' that haven't exhibited some kind of exaggerated narcissism frankly, so you may be onto something there! I think I became adept at brushing it off as 'crazy wisdom' or some shit. Not saying I'm immune, but at least I don't make out I'm on some higher plane (which is like, the same plane, but like, you know, -you- can't quite see it, but it's the same, just listen to me waffle for money and -you- will see the same-different plane)!

    As perhaps a last gasp I have asked a nondual guy whose articles I find interesting a question on the matter to see what he says...

    Apart from that though...

    Farkkk. I think I'm done too.

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  42. "(which is like, the same plane, but like, you know, -you- can't quite see it, but it's the same, just listen to me waffle for money and -you- will see the same-different plane)!"

    Ha!....LOL.

    Thanks Bro!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  43. So day 5 of my post-Nonduality odyssey and already the colours seem brighter, there is a burdon lifted from my shoulders and I am smiling at everyone beatifically. I am proud to be Sri Sri Mike's appointed successor (I appointed myself, you're allowed to do that in post-Nonduality). I'm thinking of writing a blockbuster book called 'I Don't Get It' under the pseudonym 'Happily Unenlightened Shmuck'. Blessings to you Sri Mike! : )

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gabriel,

    It does seem to me (just my opining, however) that you engage this sheit exactly as a real "enlightened" master would (contrary to the pseudo-masters all over the internet and elsewhere)

    It is completely and absurdly hilarious....

    I would suggest to others that read this blog (and they are microscopically legion), that when you can find humor in every aspect of existence, you are well along the way to "enlightenment."

    I often wonder why laughter is absent from the great texts on awakening...

    ?
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  45. I suppose because humour is kind of the antithesis of egocentricism? If your (and increasingly my) theory is correct and most of them are raving narcissists, then the last thing they'd want is their self-importance pricked by someone finding them hilarious. Interesting question...

    They must secretly piss themselves that people are believing their self-contradictory, brain-fuck of an incoherent theory though, if they don't believe it themselves (I suspect most of them do)...

    I feel like I my mind was clogged with some sort of anti-reason goop that prevented me from seeing how nonsensical much of it is, whilst hallucinating that I'm actually on some sort of non-path path to 'the truth'.

    I take back what I said... -Modern nonduality- is actually the ketamine of the philosophical world! Just say no!

    Some people I've met seem genuine and have been cool with me, but my inkling is now very much that most of it is based on belief. The ease with which my neurocircuits adjusted and accommodated for the transition to, well, just not entertaining or trying to work out an impossible riddle anymore, self-validated the fact that that's all it was: neurons firing in certain patterns.

    I'm way more at ease with just accepting things as they most likely are now, without the mental gymnastics of trying to impose an insoluble theory over the top - I had no idea I was doing this and actually thought I was into the stuff to transcend that very thing! How absurd, as you say.

    Pffft. Crazy ish, indeed. Funny though. Interesting first-hand insight into the power of belief and the pretzels our minds can get into, unwittingly.

    Feel more compassionate towards 'believers' of all kinds now.

    There's another thing to add to the anti-awakening list of boons... More compassion! Shiny teeth and great hair.

    Cheers dude,

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  46. G. Bill: "Not everybody fits a funky hat! That's for sure!"

    G. Anja: "Agreed! And cuban cigars do not fit into a shitty-faces!"

    G. Danny: "Agreed! And the Boogie-Man plays boogie best!"

    G. Luis: "Agreed! But who or what IS the Boogie-Man? That is some question!"

    Chorus: "Agreed!"

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous, I'm afraid your reference is too oblique and/or cerebral for the likes of me, if it it alludes to any of the above conversation! If everyone else gets it and I don't, that wouldn't be unusual; I'm a fairly uncultured and simple type in many ways. I do like funk, boogie and occasionally 'G. Anja' (ganja) though! If you're just testing out the RAW/Leary style reality tunnels that's cool with me too, however. Think that's about all I can add to the matter haha...

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  48. Should have kept quiet and pretended I got that perhaps haha... Just I always expect cryptic anonymous comments around these parts to have some sort Merry Prankster-ish agenda to 'blow minds' haha. Maybe I'm paranoid... Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  49. So anyway, compelling as the Boogie-man dialogue is, in fairness I probably have to say I am thoroughly agnostic about this stuff. I really don't have a CLUE what's going on. But I have no reason to believe rather far-fetched spiritualised versions either. I have to say, on balance, these guys are either onto something, or they thoroughly believe it, most of them (at least those I've met, not talking about the usual astral travelling, speaking to animal guides type). It seems way better to just forget the whole thing either way though, my poor brain is fried from trying to work it out, and the alternative encouraged just seems like passive belief and a short path to being a gullible moron. Any thoughts, Mike? Anyone (I can understand ha)?Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sorry to spam you Mike, this is becoming a bit of one-way conversation, but... David said:

    ''Done with believing that there is anywhere to go with this, anything to achieve, anything to understand or know. In direct experience there is only this."

    This kind of thing actually makes a lot of sense to me again after speaking with my friend at length last night on the topic. I can't say there is nothing in nonduality (well, I could, technically - but I mean that to me it can't be discounted as something just based unfounded beliefs, like I did a few days ago). Trying to work it out or box it into convenient conceptual stories is kind of deliberately impossible, I suppose. I knew this on one level but I hadn't until recently realised that I was still trying to do this and getting suitably confused.

    It can't really be appropriated into a new belief system is what I'm saying. I suppose, on a personal note, for various reasons - for example someone close to me committing suicide recently, and also no doubt a fear of my own death on some level - I had began to take on faith certain beliefs about an unborn, undying nature of what we are. This may very much be the case though, who can say they know for sure what's going on here? I think a kind of humble, general agnosticism in the face of the unknown is a rational and sane course to take on the matter.

    I feel I understand your position better now though Mike (as you say, as far as my neurocircuits can do this at my stage in development) and this has been a very interesting ride for me.

    Thanks to all involved in the dialogue here,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  51. Every comment is emailed to me.

    Tired of the fooking emails bro,

    Mike
    : )

    ReplyDelete
  52. it all goes to spam now dude.

    But enjoy your processing....
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  53. You could not do otherwise. Peace bro.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The volume was too much, although the chap was clearly processing "done" and most of the posts demonstrated that by the absurdity of the dialogue (been there, done that)

    nevertheless, will be switching back to auto commenting

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  55. G. Anja: "No volition teachings are what they are: Bullshit!"

    G. Bill: "True...Why "teaching" or "preaching" it anyway. Whom's no volition is it?"

    G. Luis: "Good question. That is THE question for members of the suicide-sampradaya."

    ReplyDelete